ArticleClinical endoscopy2026
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension versus direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: patient-related outcomes and complications.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Roads to the jejunum: why the easier route is not always the kinder one.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (D-PEJ) are used for jejunal feeding or administration of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel in patients with Parkinson's disease. PEG-J is currently preferred because it is technically less challenging to insert. However, comparative studies are scarce, and data on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are limited.
methodsIn this retrospective study conducted at a referral hospital, clinical experience, adverse events (AEs), and PROMs associated with both techniques were evaluated.
resultsNinety-three patients underwent PEG-J and/or D-PEJ placement between January 1, 2010, and July 1, 2022. Patients with PEG-J required significantly more re-endoscopies per tube-year than those with D-PEJ (0.63 [standard deviation, SD, 0.72] vs. 0.27 [SD 0.50]). A total of 76.8% of PEG-J patients underwent at least one re-endoscopy (range, 0-3.85 per year), primarily due to dislocated jejunal extensions (77.4%). Tube-related AEs (including dislocation, occlusion, perforation, and ulceration) occurred significantly more often after PEG-J insertion (76.7% vs. 25.9%). Forty-five patients (48%) completed the PROM questionnaire. No statistically significant differences were found in quality of life. However, D-PEJ patients reported significantly more tube-related pain (44.4% vs. 15.9%).
conclusionsD-PEJ represents a viable alternative to PEG-J in experienced centers and should be considered when frequent complications with jejunal extensions occur.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.